RE: Binding M-n and M-p to forward-paragraph and backward-paragraphrespe

From:

Drew Adams

Subject:

RE: Binding M-n and M-p to forward-paragraph and backward-paragraphrespectively

Date:

Sat, 9 Apr 2011 08:24:33 -0700

> the idea that we shouldn't add new bindings because then
> someone in the future might think that those bindings are
> somehow `special' - and that we might want them to think
> otherwise - is a rather extreme combination of straw-man and
> absurdity.
It is neither straw man nor absurdity. And it is not just an idea. The last
go-round about binding some (function) key by default clearly demonstrated this:
The discussion had not even finished, and no decision had yet been reached,
before some were sending in posts that indicated that they understood that the
key was _reserved_ and should not be changed by users or 3rd-party libraries.
IOW, it's just a _fact_. Some people respect authority with such a strong
knee-jerk reflex that they just don't get that they and others are free to bind
keys as they like (with a few exceptions, per a documented convention).
And then there is the force of habit that becomes de facto convention: A default
binding becomes respected as something that should probably not be changed (e.g.
by a library) just because so many people are already used to it.
It's understandable that people begin to feel that way, even if the doc makes it
clear that the keys in question are not reserved. And 3rd-party library authors
thus tend to avoid any such keys that are heavily used.
Binding a key by default is not a no-cost operation in terms of changing habits
and expectations. To get a new default binding accepted here, some argue that a
default binding is just a _default_ and has no force beyond that - which is true
in theory. They (should) know full well, however, that in practice things are
not so simple.